SAMUEL PALMER'S "ECLOGUES OF VIRGIL."
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—The review of Samuel Palmer's version of Virgil's "Eclogues," which appeared in your issue of the 15th inst., oontains some statements which fill me with surprise. I must ask you to allow me to correct them.
1. The seventh eclogue is illustrated by a photogravure. The eighth eclogue is illustrated by the one etching which was com- pletely finished by my father. "The difference is too marked," says your reviewer, "to escape even the most untrained eye." So I should have thought. But a misprint in the preface (cor- rected by the list of illustrations), appears to have led- him to mistake the one for the other, and to distribute his praise and blame accordingly. The "softness and delicacy" he admires belong to the photogravure, and the "comparatively coarse cross-hatching," which has the misfortune to meet with his dis- approval, is the work of my father's own needle.
2. The reviewer goes on to say :—" There are eight photo- -engravings from Mr. Palmer's drawings, some of which have been touched by his son. These are good of their kind, and better almost in the inverse ratio to the quantity of alteration they have received." He unfortunately instances in support of this -dbservation the illustrations to the first eclogue, the first of which, he thinks, has been injured by my retouching, especially in the horizontal clouds. These clouds are absolutely untouched. The second, which he prefers, under the impression that "there has been no perceptible alteration made in the mechanical reproduction," represents about three weeks of careful work.
3. Unconsoled by his singular success in discovering the -"qualities of an etching" in a photogravure, your reviewer Appears to be exercised in mind by "sham plate-marks," which he thinks surround the photogravures. As a photogravure is produced upon a copper-plate, I fail to see how it is to be printed without showing a plate-mark. I should have supposed it quite impossible for "even the most untrained eye" to mistake an impression from a copper-plate for anything else in the world. The modern invention of photo-engraving is excellent for the reproduction of drawings, but that a professed critic should not only be altogether ignorant of its nature, but should mistake a photogravure reproduction of a pen-and-ink drawing by Samuel Palmer for a finished etching by the same hand seems, to say the least of it, astounding.
I must confess to having derived considerable amusement (which has been largely shared) from the remarks of your re- viewer, and though I cannot altogether refrain from pitying a writer whom a single oversight of mine appears to have led so easily into such an unpleasant predicament, I must confess to enjoying some malicious pleasure in being able to contribute "a little bit of instruction" towards the neglected technical educa- tion of the judge before whom I have been arraigned.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Farnborough, Kent, December 19th. A. H. PALMER.
SIR,—Kindly allow me to say a few words with reference to this letter of Mr. A. H. Palmer's ; they shall be as few as possible. I am, of course, bound to accept his correction that the etching finished by his father was wrongly described in the preface, and I am quite willing to admit that I followed Mr. Palmer's mistake too incautiously ; but I would point out to him, at the same time, that the mistake in the preface goes much farther than any mere misprint of " seven " for "eight," for in the eighth eclogue there are two illustrative etchings, and, therefore, it could hardly be imagined that a sentence which said, "The etching illustrating the seventh [meaning the eighth] eclogue was, as I have said, completely finished by Samuel Palmer himself," could refer to the eclogue to which there were two illustrations. With regard, however, to the more important point of the "comparatively coarse cross- hatching" of the clouds in the first etching illustrating the eighth eclogue, I have simply to state that my opinion is not in the least changed by the fact that the plate was wrought by Mr.:Palmer himself. My statement in this respect is absolutely correct and I am only sorry that the work should have been that of the deceased artist, and not attributable to the com- pletion of the plate by another hand. The truth is, no doubt, that Mr. Palmer's dexterity with the etching-needle, necessitat- ing as it did a marvellous accuracy of' hand and intensity of eyesight, failed him before his power of drawing with pencil and pen ; and hence the superiority in this book of those reproduc- tions which are fac-similes of the designs alone. With regard to the illustrations to the first eclogue, surely Mr. Palmer must be confusing the drawing upon which he did "three weeks' careful work." Does he not refer in this to the third illustration, and not to the second, of which I was speaking? If this is not so, I can only say that I am unable to see any trace of the etching-needle in this illustration, which has the peculiar softness; of a photogravure in every part, and in which there is not a single line which has the quality of an etching. And if this is not the case, why does Mr. Palmer call it in the list of contents "reproduced from a copy of the water-colour drawing "? If, as he asserts, he has spent three weeks' work upon it, why does he not say so ? In- deed, in this matter, Mr. Palmer seems to contradict himself, for in the preface, where he speaks of this illustration, he calls it simply a reproduction of a water-colour drawing ; and goes on to say of "the other drawings which had not been etched," that they have "passed through his hands, in order that they should do the more justice to the origi- nals." With regard to the plate-mark upon photogravures, I have only to say that there are so many different photo- engraving processes which superficially resemble woodcuts and etchings, that it is highly desirable that the kind of reproduc- tion employed should be stated plainly upon some portion of the margin surrounding the illustration, and that this is especially necessary when the photo-engraving or photo- lithograph, or whatever it is, is mixed up with etchings, and even worked upon afterwards with an etching-needle. And lastly, with regard to Mr. Palmer's statement that he finds it " astounding " that a professed critic should mistake a "reproduction of a pen-and-ink drawing for a finished etch- ing," I would remind him that critics are scarcely to be blamed too severely for accepting as matters of fact the statements made by the author of the work which they are criticising. The actual criticism made upon these etchings was, to the best of my belief, absolutely correct, the only error being that I attri- buted to the natural inferiority of the son's workmanship that decline in skill which was really due to the failing power of the original artist. —I am, Sir, &c., " THE REVIEWER."
Previous page
